After shooting Canon for many years, I switched to Fuji. I shoot the GFX 100s, X-H2 & X-H2s. The ASPC is for Lifestyle portraits, real estate shoots and video. The GFX is for Portrait and landscape/cityscape.
I have that camera and I really love it. With respect to aspect ratio, I never use the 4X3. I have finally started using crops that make it easier to print and frame. So, I use 4X5 which really is more conducive to making 8X10 and 16X20 prints. I also use 16X9 because it is similar to HD TV. I also use the narrow letterbox crop. For me, 4X3 is always in the background to allow me to make portions of the prints the way I want. Now, I am quite a bit older than you. So, the system is heavy to me. I have the 20-35, the 45-100 and the 100-200. All of this is a very heavy package for a 75 year old who is still in basically good shape.
While I’d love a medium format camera, I really enjoy the freedom my Olympus camera gives me. I have a 75-300 lens (600mm full frame reach) that’s the size of a pop can.
As a Fujifilm GFX 100s user I have found that it serves well by slowing me down. I'm not bothered by size and weight of the lenses and am happy with the quality of the images I get. If I need longer reach, I invested in a Fringer adaptor for Canon EF to use with my leftover Canon lenses. I lose about 40% of the resolution, but with my Tamron 2X converter, I now can reach out to 600mm, (about 475mm on the 100s). This is the system I'll use for the eclipse next month.
@@ChrisM-yq2pq I kept my R6 MKII and a few lenses - it just does stuff the Hasselblad will never do - but the X2D sure is special. I've also purchased two old telephoto Leica R lenses for it (they're brilliant, and not expensive), and I have a Voigtlander Nokton 21mm f/1.4 on the way. This set up is bringing me back to the simple pleasure or making photos again.
Mark, most of your comment on going to the medium format, I can relate to in just going from a crop sensor to full frame. My Canon R5 has similar cropping capabilities. Same is true for the jump in dynamic range from crop to full frame. I'll never use anything bigger than what I have now, but I'm happy where I am.
I agree with many things you have said… the camera has forced me to slowdown making me a better photographer… it absolutely fun to use, and the image quality is amazing
I was always APSC, partly for size but also budget. Size was important because the camera comes travelling with me a lot, but your videos really got me into landscapes Mark so I was always keen to try out full frame performance. Recently had the opportunity to upgrade and moved up to a Sony A7Cii and never looked back!
Agree 100% with all your thoughts, Mark. The long lens problem has bugged me too, that said, cropping helps significantly. Quite a few people adapt 100-400mm lenses from other full frame systems and deal with vignetting in Post. I also agree about the user experience. I used to be a Canon 6D shooter, the camera and lenses helped produced nice images, but I but never loved using the camera. I have loved using my 100S.
Thanks for your video. Over the decades, I have used cameras with the following image aspect ratios: 1:1 6:7 4:5 3:4 2:3 1:2 For years, 1:1 was my personal favorite until I tried 6:7.
I am in a similar camp. I went from a Nikon D7100 to a new Z6. It was a jump, but honestly not that great of a jump. Last year I went from the Z6 to the Z8 and many of the observations you have going to Medium Format I have going to the Z8. Better color, better resolution, crop-ability, etc. I'll sticking with the Z8 for a long time. Especially if Nikon continues to upgrade the firmware.
If going from a D7100 to a Z6 wasn't a great jump, your Z6 must have been broken lol. Going from a 3200 to a Z5 was an astronomical jump in usability and functionality and made me love photography again. Sure, going from a Z6 to a Z8 is a great jump too, but going from 2013 technology in a 7100 to a fantastic mirrorless camera in a Z6 had to be more than "not great."
I have a D7200 D3200 and D70 happy with all of them , these cameras are awesome. The problem with some photographers is that they think their photography is going to get better with a mirrorless sadly you are one of them.
As someone who is a big fan of the Fuji 70-300 and telephoto lenses, I personally couldn’t move over to the GFX cameras, BUT I know exactly why people use them and it works for the shooters style. It definitely works for the way you shoot. When it comes to cropping, I absolutely appreciated the extra resolution of the XT5 over the XT4 for landscape and wildlife. There are some images that I cropped with the XT5 that turned into a 24mp image that would have been more like a 10mp image. Not a huge deal if posted online, but looking at the details goes way out the window.
Thanks mark, As a hobbyist I would find it tempting to use such a camera for a day but I'd happily hand it in afterward. I switchedfrom Canon 6D Mk. II to Sony A7R4 about a year ago and I am still amazed about what 61 megapixels and good ynamic range brings me. For me, I need to be able to carry camera gear with 2, max 3 lenses, drone, spare batteries, tripod, spare clothing, food, water up a mountain and stay warm while waiting for sunset and / or sunrise (aroudn this time you can photograph both in my favorite destination Iceland within 3 hours). So size and weight is an issue
I use to shoot a lot of portraits & weddings back in the 80's & 90's, my Mamiya RB-67 was my absolute favorite! All alter shots was done with my 6x7. I'm thinking about doing portraits again but in digital now, lol! Thanks for this video.
It's really interesting Mark, because I've switched to medium format in the last four months and my answer is for large prints on a wall. Absolutely 100%. It makes a difference and anyone who thinks it doesn't is killing themselves the level of detail I did this print the other day, and there were some barnacles on a rock probably about 20 m into the scene, and these barnacles had no sharpening added to them, and it really took you into the scene. That's the difference with medium format is it actually takes you into the landscape you feel like you're standing in it that is the difference I never believe that until I went to medium format and I know people will say that it doesn't make a difference, blah blah they are usually people that don't own a medium format camera. And like you have said it does have some logistical challenges. Sometimes it is expensive. It is heavy and the shallow depth to feel can present some problems to in certain situations but for me the positives of this system far out way the negatives I have the GFX 50 S Mark two and eventually I'll probably upgrade to the 100 ii .... And I absolutely love it. Interestingly I still have a crop sensor camera that I take with me and I take similar photos with that. Then I compare the two images and I'm a very good landscape photographer. I have to laugh as well. I have an XT5 and I do exactly the same when I need a longshot 300 or 400 mil. I have a lens that goes onto my XT5 and to be honest having a huge zoom on a GFX camera probably wouldn't work as well. There's reasons for that weight being one of them and the actual ability to hold the camera handheld would be very compromised. And just the cost of the lens would be ridiculous. The lens would be 10,000 bucks if it was a 400 mm lens. The dynamic range is ridiculous isn't it? You can just recover stuff it does make real world shooting easier and I found that as well especially in golden hour situations and you're facing the sun. It just makes it so much easier. I came from Nikon to Fuji, and I found them in your system to be relatively similar. Even the naming of certain things in the camera are similar. However, if you pick up a Sony or a canon, they are completely different terminology in the menus, and there's no way I could use those cameras, simply because of the terminology I'm now 50 and I don't want to learn a whole new system when I went to Fuji, I felt like it was almost a Nikon camera in terms of the menu system was very similar. Even the wrench icon is the same. The one thing that medium format also did for me and sorry for my long message. I did get excited by this video was and still is that medium format gets you to slow down. There is definitely more of a methodical process that you need to go through when you're shooting around depth of field where you focus and a few other things as well and just the GFX cameras themselves are not running gun style cameras so they do get you to slow down and I actually think that's a good thing. I'm very much a mindfulness space photographer and this camera just suits my mindful approach.
But what about the photograph as a whole? Is it a story, is it about something, or is it just a snapshot of a moment in time? The master's photographs stand the test of time because, even though they are comparatively "low-res", they compel on an emotional or intellectual level. Chasing MP is a fruitless quest...which isn't to say I'd reject more MP in the next iteration of my system 😄 but I'm pretty happy with what I have because the system as a whole really facilitates the kind of work I like to do. Which I think is the key takeaway of Mark's video.
@@whafrogchasing megapixels is a waste of time? Did you know that the first landscape photographers used cameras they needed a mule to pull up mountains and had huge negatives? We have it easy. It’s not about chasing megapixels anyways. It’s the larger sensor
Well most landscape photographers use wide angle lenses which pushes things back. What’s nice about medium format is the sensor is large so you’re not using a wide angle in a tiny “ full frame “ sensor. All that detail is in a larger area for it to breath
Great video, Mark. It's wonderful to see a photographer passionate not just about his favorite camera but the whys behind the preference. While I'm in the full frame world at the moment, I could see myself gravitating toward medium format in the future for portraiture.
Mark, I agree with your comment of how big a 300mm lens would have be on a medium format camera. I have a Pentax 300mm lens for my Pentax 6x7 medium format film camera and it is huge. If I had realized how large it would be I wouldn't have bought it.
Of all the photography that I have done over the years my absolute favorite was 645 medium format film. To me there is nothing that compares. I currently shoot mostly birds and wildlife these days with the Sony eco system. I often think back to those medium format film days and this video makes me wonder 🤔This could be a expensive journey 😁
Not sure if you’ve tried already, but a lot of full frame Nikkor and nicer Sigma (105 1.4 art for example) lenses can be adapted to the gfx with minimal/no vignettes, so that might scratch your itch for longer lenses that aren’t quite as massive.
Very down to earth and completely correct. Yes focus stacking is often required, but very simple to do. And yes the long lens will be an issue in perpetuity so to the physics of the system and work around are needed. As you do I use a Fuji apc and the 70-300 that is an excellent solution and allows to share batteries on several models now. I do wonder if Fuji (are you listening???) would not be able to come up with a 150-500 built with some of the tricks they used for the 35-70mm, which is a very small and lightweight lens but with mighty optical capabilities!!!
I used medium format for weddings in the 70's, as I was also doing motorsport I had 2 complete systems, 7 Medium format lenses as there were no zooms. Maximum focal length 300mm, only I couldn't use it for sport, too much film, no AF etc. It may be easier now with digital but you are still limited by lack of lenses, weight, and you can probably do exactly the same on full frame, especially stitching a panorama. You pays your money, you makes your choice.
The 4:3 aspect ratio is the FX 645 format captured by 645 full-frame film and digital cameras. The GFX is a 1.3 crop 645 format and records in the 4:3 aspect ratio. With that said, the Nikon Z7ii and Z9 can be shot in this format with slight MP cropping. I shot 645 and 67 medium-format film cameras for many years. I love the 4:3 aspect ratio. Today I shoot Nikon but I am also ready to jump to medium format for my professional work, but not dumping my trusty Nikon. Just trying to figure out if I am adding a 2nd Z9 to my kit first. Nice video.
I thought long and hard about moving to the medium format world, and to using this camera specifically. Eventually, I decided to go with the Sony A7RV. Price, size and weight of the overall kit, and the lense selection all put together...hard to beat. That said, the images that this camera(the GFX 100S) can produce are just unreal, even compared to the 61 sensor on the sony.
Always enjoy your videos Mark. Very informative. I currently am using the Canon R6 m2. Like you said photography should be fun and to me, just being able to go out and capture part of nature is a good day!
I shoot full frame and am considering medium format. Thanks for the great overview of MF -- very helpful info on dynamic range, depth of field, crop-ability. HOWEVER, for me image quality is most important, and I was disappointed that you skipped over that. I personally would crawl over broken glass to get notably better image quality. I would cheerfully use the least user-friendly, un-fun, clunky device imaginable, if it gave me image quality at a higher level. So the next time you get on the topic of medium format, please do feel free to waste our time with some detailed commentary on what is the difference between MF and full-frame in terms of image quality. You mention tonality -- what is that?? Any other points re image quality. I guarantee I will not be bored.
Thanks for the video Mark...All great information for those contemplating embracing the realm of Medium format...it's a huge investment and this will help with furthering the decision making process with a "hands on'" testimonial...I made the decision to go "All In" late last year and haven't regretted it...However, I do feel a little guilty when down loading the files and I can hear the anguishing and laborious moans of my iMac processing and crunching all that data!!!
what I miss here is any remark that a medium size system also costs a lot of more money while you have a very restricted number of lenses compared to a mainstream fullframe system (which is less than half of the price).
I picked up a 50r a few years back and built a landscape kit for cheaper than I did when I shot on Canon. Plus you can adapt pretty much any lens your heart desires ; )
About 7 years ago I bought an RZ67 pro ii, a 50, 65, 90, 110, 180 and 250mm lens, 4x120 film backs, and a prism finder all ex+or better for under $1200. And 160 rolls of film for under $200. I can hardly believe how much the price has gone up over that time. Still using and enjoying it when time permits even at my advanced age.
I was considering the GFX 100SII in addition to my couple of Canon R5s I have been using a few years now. I don’t think i can justify the purchase though as medium format is for very specific uses, whereas full frame is much more versatile. I just would not use MF enough (as a full time professional photographer). The Fuji would be more of a camera for me than for work, but i don’t really do landscapes and although i have done portraits, not too often, at least not artistic ones. As far as i understand, the depth of field argument for MF is a non starter as it is just about lens and aperture equivalents. The two things that intrigue me about MF though are the detail and the dynamic range. A little less so the detail as my R5 already gives me 45MP and i am not sure how much i would see a difference for all that extra money. The dynamic range on the other hand though really does intrigue me and i would love to compare RAW files from each system. I have long felt frustrated by the limited dynamic range of FF. Maybe i should rent one, but again, do i REALLY need it. Nice to window shop though 😊
enjoyed this video. would like to see one about which focal lengths you find yourself using the most? (Unless you've already done one like that, in which case would like a link. thanks!
Medium format certainly produces some fantastic images but there are several major drawbacks for me. First is price. Medium format may be more affordable than ever but it's way out of my price range. Secondly, I do a lot of hiking with my gear and downsized because I got tired of carrying a brick around. Lastly, and this goes along with my second point, the size of even full frame was too big for my needs. I believe in a minimalist approach and so I have a Fuji X-T3, 16-80 zoom and the 70-300.
The lack of long telephoto lenses is certainly a concern. But considering the depth to which you can crop without losing great resolution, it would seem to at least somewhat negate the lack of lens options. Mark, do you find this to be the case?
Constrictive aspect ratio is SO TRUE about FF. I used M43 for over a year and went back to FF and hated how completely narrow it felt. It is very cinematic for video, but 4:3 is superior and much more natural for photography
I was thinking that mediumd format was more expensive than full frame. I mean this fuji costs like some flagship full frame cameras, and I can say also the same about the lenses costs. Incredible.
I shoot the Pentax 645z medium format camera and I have found it to be far superior to small format in most ways. My only complaint is the low number of images per second. But I'd say 95% of my paid work is now using the medium format solution.
I just sold my 100s and went for a nikon z8, hope I made the right decision as I loved the 100s but wanted a bit more versatile camera to do wildlife etc. I sure miss how easy the menu system etc was on the 100s!! The nikon z8 is more complicated for sure and takes more time getting used to.
I have the GFX 50SII and love it for all the reasons you mentioned. I have just three lenses, 20-35, 35-70 and the 100-200. I also have the Hasselblad 500 V Series camera and with an adapter I use my 250 and 350 Hasselblad lenses to get that additional reach when I think I will need that. I will say that unlike you I find the menu system very difficult to use and not intuitive at all
excellent video. Mark. In my photography journey I have owned a Pentax 6x7, a Mamiya RZ. I no longer have those cameras. I recently got a Pentax 645 film and I am loving it. I recently started shooting film again and the Pentax is a joy. And it's a very easy camera to use. In the 35mm world I prefer full frame sensors. I do have a Canon 7D for when I need a little more reach from my 70-200 lens.
Interesting- the 4:3 aspect ratio is one of the top reasons I haven't considered a mf camera! Aside from preferring 2:3, my customers already have a hard enough time choosing the right print size. To give them yet another whole additional range of options...no way!
102 megapixels - is it a lot or a little? And is it worth paying extra for dynamic range? The answer is simple: HDR and a panoramic head, for example Nodal Ninja 6. Yes, you will have to spend more time shooting, but even with my 24-70mm lens I cannot process some photos in Photoshop and I can only reduce the resolution due to limitations Photoshop, but there are almost no restrictions on optics.
As an amateur/enthusiast photographer, spending the money for a GFX wouldn't make sense. Not that I wouldn't love to have one! I'd love a Porsche Carrera GT too, but that ain't happening any time soon either! LOL! I'm still shooting my X-T3 and just love it. It's a great hiking companion, but also does portraits, sports, street and everything in between more than good enough for me. The one thing I'd like to get for it is a long lens. I've been keeping an eye on used xf50-140 lenses, but they're still to expensive for me. I may have to think about another option like your 55-200. I was hoping to get that 50-140 because of the wider aperture for sports, but the f3.5 on the 55-200 might be ok. Question: In your opinion, how is the OIS on the 55-200? Thanks for the overview. Take care, have a great weekend!
Hello, interesting video since in few days I am getting a new GFX camera. I do not plan to leave my Z8, since I like to shoot some wildlife and sometimes sports. My plan for the GFX is to use it mainly for landscape. The Z8 is good, but I miss a bit the dynamic range of the medium format. I checked some forums and UA-cam videos, as lenses I plan to purchase the GF 35-70 and the GF 23 (both used) for wide angle . You mentioned that the GFX system (unfortunately) up to now does not have a much choice for long zoom lenses (100-200, 250 and the coming 500). At this point do you advise me to wait to purchase the GF 100-200 and continue to use the Nikon Z8 + Z 100-400 when the subject is far or the GF 100-200 is still worth the initial investment?
Interesting video Mark....a couple of things, I was in the Lake District in the UK last weekend and I met a guy using this system....he mentioned the depth of field can be a challenge, did you find this also ref the focal length matter....with the crop availability could you get a 400mm focal length by cropping on a 200mm lens 😊. I currently use the Sony a7iv.
Why are there fewer extreme teles or fisheyes in MF? Perhaps because beyond the middle focal length and short tele portrait lengths, you're likely throwing sensor resolution away with the highest MP sensors
I'm not knocking medium format at all here, but I think for the majority of shooters, full frame 35mm is probably the happy middle ground... good dynamic range and image quality, and more importantly cost and size/weight concerns are less since FF lenses (and sometimes bodies) are smaller and lighter. For me, the biggest prohibiting factor for not moving to MF is cost, as I like to travel, and I'd rather spend money on travel and use my FF kit, than upgrade my camera to a MF system and have less money to spend on travel, or have to take time off from traveling to buy the gear, and many are probably in the same boat. I don't doubt that MF has its advantages but I think for most people, FF is probably "good enough" balance between affordability, portability and quality (image quality). I don't think any camera makes anyone a better photographer, UNLESS their current camera / system is legitimately holding them back in some way, but for most people, that's not the reason they perhaps aren't getting better or progressing (if they're concerned about that). But at the same time, a different system/format/camera may be what gets you inspired to shoot more perhaps, and that's fine too. I mean I just bought Nikon's new Zf retro camera because I missed the Fuji XT cameras I had (I consolidated my DSLRs and Fuji system when the Nikon Z system was released to only having one single system and set of lenses with multiple bodies that could share the same set of lenses as that was cheaper in the long run). But while the Zf has taken some time to get used to (particularly the dial and button layout) it has been a bit of a change for the good as it reminds me of the days when I was shooting with my Fuji XT2 which I enjoyed, but again, wasn't really economically viable to support two systems in the long run) so the Zf is the next best thing and it's been enjoyable to be honest, as it's something different, and it's a bit different than shooting with your typical DSLR style camera, which I was starting to get a little bored with (wanted the dials and controls like a manual film camera). So I think new or different gear is fine if it inspires you, but you shouldn't go into it thinking that it will make you a better photographer necessarily. But if inspiration is what one needs to get out there and practice, then maybe we can say it's a contributing factor.
The 3:2 vs 4:3 is funny.... I feel the same but opposite - The 3:2 to me has a breathing space that 4:3 does not. Maybe it's because I mostly shoot horizontal rather than vertical for whatever reason - and I'm not a landscape photg.
Being as perturbed as I was with fudging 'round with Crop Factors, and needing to shell out load of ¥€$ on nice shiny, and BRIGHT f2.8 Lenses on Canons cheap 1.6x Crop APS-C bodies. I decided I would get a 5D mk II instead, where a 50mm lens, is an actual 50mm Lens.*, but I digress! Was there a time when People were getting off 120mm were drawing these identical arguments against 35mm? seems to me, that 120mm never quite entered the mainstream conscience the way 35mm had. The fact that these APS-C Bodies are deceptively (incorrectly, or not), being perceived as being equal to your daddies old AE1 hasn't helped much. Being a dinosaur myself, I grew up on 35mm and I can't bring myself to accept any less. And yet, the future in both Photography, and Videography seems to be the same Device I'm using to type this out on. * Yes I know, despite the FOV Crop, that makes the Image 'look' like it might have been shot at 80mm. It's just a 1:1 crop of a 50mm on a full sensor. Then theres that other problem with blurry / creamy backgrounds. And, well EF-S Glas just doesn't seem to cut it. I'm sure APS-C has some advantages somewhere. I just haven't found / afforded to find it yet.
Yes, absolutely, positively ... medium format cameras really DO make a difference, just like in the days of film photography. The physics are a bit different, and not just the sizes of the format. As for technical quality, larger is always better. And generally speaking, in order for the perfection to be more abundantly noticed a grand way, you must pay heed to the particulars. And yes - The LARGER the imaging sensor, the better. Except for the inconvenience of more bulky equipment. But mirror-less cameras surely have a way of driving down the bulk.
@@fintonmainz7845 Last time I checked there were stll 24 hours in a day.....just saying. However I will admit Digital photograpy is convenient and a relative bargain.
Nice post mark. I can relate to all items you mentioned. I own a GFX 100s and an xt-5. And I am just a hobbyist photographer and I travel many places. My last travel was to shoot over 5000 pics in Vietnam last year in 3 weeks. I had same challenge for not having a 100-400mm lens. I fixed that by doing this. I got a mint copy of canon 100-400mm usm L II lens and got the Fringer auto adapter for my GFX and xt5. I also got a second hand mint 1.4 vII tele converter for canon lens. I sold my gf 100-200 lens. This gave me all the flexibility for long lens now. Yes I fix vignettes over 150mm on GFX for that lens but I have learnt to compose better and I crop out edges easily if really required. And this lens is no slouch. The quality is better than Fuji gf100-200 lense esp the way it renders the image/colours. I am loving the output from this lens on gfx100s and xt5. I carry gf20-35, gf 45-100 and canon 100-400mm. That’s all I need.
Very informative video. I love what the MF image offers but with the following 3 concerns: 1. The 4:3 ratio, this is not " issue" but personal thing, totally opposite as you, I am not a huge fan of this aspect ratio, I almost want to say I hate that, it's just not how I see the world, LOL, definitely not how I view that on my computer screen, I am more of a wide aspect ratio guy so if I shoot GFX100S, I will practically throw away more than 1/4 to even 1/3 of the pixels on every single picture, that's what I found from my previous experience shooting MFT system so i will be really careful to get into another system with such aspect ratio, it works great for portrait though. 2. lack of the F1.4/F1.8 super wide lens for wide field astro/milky way. Currently the Sigma 14 F1.4 and Sony 14 GM and Sigma 20 F1.4 DG DN and Sony 20 1.8G are my main wide field Astro lens on FF, there is no such equivalence on MF yet, so I am patiently waiting such lens show up in this system. 3. The telephoto, you already mentioned that, I also shoot with super telephoto quite a bit, have a few 400, 500 and 600 prime on my FF and APS-C bodies, those would be impossible to get a replacement in MF, of course IC an crop the image due to the high pixel count, but it's kind of counter productive and still can't get a decent 800mm equivalent moon pic with any Fuji lens with cropping, and I don't think this will be resolved any time soon, even they make a 600 F4 MF lens I won't be able to afford it anyway. With that being said, I think I will still give the Fuji MF system a try for general landscape and portrait, just one camera body with a few primes will be a good starting point.
This has nothing to do with this video but I was rewatching one of yours from a couple years ago. Just had a question about black and white. Is there an advantage to or quality difference to shoot in black and white as opposed to just changing to black and white in Lightroom?
2:47 There is a reasonable, real world argument for why very long focal lengths do not make that much sense on medium format - besides the weight, size and cost. Here's why: at very long focal lengths in many real world situations the optical resolution that will reach the sensor won't even come close the detail the medium format sensor would be able to resolve - not because the lens is bad, but for factors like atmosphere and weather acting on the light path in between the very long distance in between the subject and the lens. It doesn't make sense to put a 100MP sensor behind the equivalent of a 100-400mm lens for many landscape scenes, a lower resolution 35mm format sensor will capture the same amount of detail.
You say that because of the sensor size it means that the lens has to be big, it does but for some reason they are ridiculously big. Just think a Pentax 6x7 medium format film camera has a far bigger area to cover than that digital format sensor, yet Pentax produce a reasonable sized 300mm F4!. Why are ALL thses digaital camera lenses so bloody big,even FF and crop sensor have bigger lenses than film cameras used to have AND they are slower in many cases.
I am almost at point to make my camera purchase Nikon Z8 or Fuji GFX 100S and trending towards the GFX 100S, Do I waits a bit longer and got for the GFX 100S II?
I feel so much room to breathe within 3:2 after getting used to it, no longer that claustrophobic feel of 4:3. Not to talk the crop possibilities of a FF camera and the wonderful screens & possibilities on e.g. Nikon & Canon cameras on top of the great menu’s. And then not to forget the joy it brings to shoot e.g. with a Z8 or Z9. The possibilities with all the different lens options and even have the background in focus doing landscape photography. And I would for sure do it again after 3 years as FF systems are so affordable in the meantime…
Mark, there's one thing you didn't take into account in this video. You're sitting in black clothes and showing us a black camera and lenses. And at the same time, you suggest that we see the difference in size between glasses for cameras with a crop sensor and glasses for medium format. It smacks of mockery.))). Black on black, which is also not highlighted in any way. You get very good landscapes, but you didn't take into account such a "trifle".
Medium format is not the best system for long telephoto shooters! For most purposes full frame is the better solution, or even APS-C. The only real advantage I see is the crop opportunities it provides. But good photographers don't need to crop often and a lot, do they?
Medium format is mostly for people with no skills who think they can outlay a massive amount of cash on medium format and that will automatically make their photos better. Even my dentist has medium format and his photos are garbage but he thinks they are art as they were taken on medium format. They are on the wall and are ghastly but thankfully when I’m in the dentist chair I’m looking at the ceiling and he is yet to put them there.
Mark, agree with you completely - I switch from a Sony A7RV to the Fuji GFX 100 ii last November and it took a while but I don't see myself going back to full frame any time soon - I overcame the lens reach by using their extender ad to be honest have not seen any degredation in the photo quality on the 100-200 GF kens - very happy with my choice, thanks for your video's they have been a great help in stretching my imagination.
Thanks Mark - with the file size of images, and the amount of images you can store to an external drive being less compared to a full frame or APS-C camera, would you say that you are making less, more or the same amount of images than you were 3 years ago?
At the beginning of the digital age, I patently waited for Nikon and Leica to produce a full-frame digital camera that accepted my inventory of Nikkor and Leitz lenses. However, when I could wait no longer, I bought Fuji APS-C cameras with 7 lenses. In this digital age, I am still waiting for someone to produce a 6x7cm medium format digital camera that accepts my inventory of Mamiya RB67 lenses.
✅Which camp are you in? Full Frame, APSC, Medium?
I am in the, what I can afford, camp. I would love to try out different camera types but don't have the money for it.
After shooting Canon for many years, I switched to Fuji. I shoot the GFX 100s, X-H2 & X-H2s. The ASPC is for Lifestyle portraits, real estate shoots and video. The GFX is for Portrait and landscape/cityscape.
@@jeffschreifels8651 I get that!
@@317Media_Indy Woah - dream setup!
Full frame with a lowly Z5.
I have that camera and I really love it. With respect to aspect ratio, I never use the 4X3. I have finally started using crops that make it easier to print and frame. So, I use 4X5 which really is more conducive to making 8X10 and 16X20 prints. I also use 16X9 because it is similar to HD TV. I also use the narrow letterbox crop. For me, 4X3 is always in the background to allow me to make portions of the prints the way I want. Now, I am quite a bit older than you. So, the system is heavy to me. I have the 20-35, the 45-100 and the 100-200. All of this is a very heavy package for a 75 year old who is still in basically good shape.
While I’d love a medium format camera, I really enjoy the freedom my Olympus camera gives me. I have a 75-300 lens (600mm full frame reach) that’s the size of a pop can.
As a Fujifilm GFX 100s user I have found that it serves well by slowing me down. I'm not bothered by size and weight of the lenses and am happy with the quality of the images I get. If I need longer reach, I invested in a Fringer adaptor for Canon EF to use with my leftover Canon lenses. I lose about 40% of the resolution, but with my Tamron 2X converter, I now can reach out to 600mm, (about 475mm on the 100s). This is the system I'll use for the eclipse next month.
I just sold my R5 for a Hasselblad X2D, and I LOVE the simplicity. And of course, the resolution and colour science.
I still have my Sonys but man Hasselblad x1d is nice and simple that if I could I would go all the way Hassy
@@ChrisM-yq2pq I kept my R6 MKII and a few lenses - it just does stuff the Hasselblad will never do - but the X2D sure is special. I've also purchased two old telephoto Leica R lenses for it (they're brilliant, and not expensive), and I have a Voigtlander Nokton 21mm f/1.4 on the way. This set up is bringing me back to the simple pleasure or making photos again.
Mark, most of your comment on going to the medium format, I can relate to in just going from a crop sensor to full frame. My Canon R5 has similar cropping capabilities. Same is true for the jump in dynamic range from crop to full frame. I'll never use anything bigger than what I have now, but I'm happy where I am.
The field set up in this video = pure envy :)
I agree with many things you have said… the camera has forced me to slowdown making me a better photographer… it absolutely fun to use, and the image quality is amazing
Great video - this was super interesting and helpful. Thanks Mark - always a quality watch!
I was always APSC, partly for size but also budget. Size was important because the camera comes travelling with me a lot, but your videos really got me into landscapes Mark so I was always keen to try out full frame performance.
Recently had the opportunity to upgrade and moved up to a Sony A7Cii and never looked back!
Agree 100% with all your thoughts, Mark. The long lens problem has bugged me too, that said, cropping helps significantly. Quite a few people adapt 100-400mm lenses from other full frame systems and deal with vignetting in Post. I also agree about the user experience. I used to be a Canon 6D shooter, the camera and lenses helped produced nice images, but I but never loved using the camera. I have loved using my 100S.
Thanks for your video.
Over the decades, I have used cameras with the following image aspect ratios:
1:1
6:7
4:5
3:4
2:3
1:2
For years, 1:1 was my personal favorite until I tried 6:7.
I am in a similar camp. I went from a Nikon D7100 to a new Z6. It was a jump, but honestly not that great of a jump. Last year I went from the Z6 to the Z8 and many of the observations you have going to Medium Format I have going to the Z8. Better color, better resolution, crop-ability, etc. I'll sticking with the Z8 for a long time. Especially if Nikon continues to upgrade the firmware.
If going from a D7100 to a Z6 wasn't a great jump, your Z6 must have been broken lol. Going from a 3200 to a Z5 was an astronomical jump in usability and functionality and made me love photography again. Sure, going from a Z6 to a Z8 is a great jump too, but going from 2013 technology in a 7100 to a fantastic mirrorless camera in a Z6 had to be more than "not great."
I have a D7200 D3200 and D70 happy with all of them , these cameras are awesome. The problem with some photographers is that they think their photography is going to get better with a mirrorless sadly you are one of them.
As someone who is a big fan of the Fuji 70-300 and telephoto lenses, I personally couldn’t move over to the GFX cameras, BUT I know exactly why people use them and it works for the shooters style. It definitely works for the way you shoot.
When it comes to cropping, I absolutely appreciated the extra resolution of the XT5 over the XT4 for landscape and wildlife. There are some images that I cropped with the XT5 that turned into a 24mp image that would have been more like a 10mp image. Not a huge deal if posted online, but looking at the details goes way out the window.
Thanks mark, As a hobbyist I would find it tempting to use such a camera for a day but I'd happily hand it in afterward. I switchedfrom Canon 6D Mk. II to Sony A7R4 about a year ago and I am still amazed about what 61 megapixels and good ynamic range brings me. For me, I need to be able to carry camera gear with 2, max 3 lenses, drone, spare batteries, tripod, spare clothing, food, water up a mountain and stay warm while waiting for sunset and / or sunrise (aroudn this time you can photograph both in my favorite destination Iceland within 3 hours). So size and weight is an issue
I use to shoot a lot of portraits & weddings back in the 80's & 90's, my Mamiya RB-67 was my absolute favorite! All alter shots was done with my 6x7.
I'm thinking about doing portraits again but in digital now, lol! Thanks for this video.
Really interesting and informative, Mark. I haven't ever used medium-format, so this was largely new information for me.
Yep, the GF 100-200 is one of their best landscape lens that I use a lot. I agree with all your assessments 🖐🏼
It's really interesting Mark, because I've switched to medium format in the last four months and my answer is for large prints on a wall. Absolutely 100%. It makes a difference and anyone who thinks it doesn't is killing themselves the level of detail I did this print the other day, and there were some barnacles on a rock probably about 20 m into the scene, and these barnacles had no sharpening added to them, and it really took you into the scene. That's the difference with medium format is it actually takes you into the landscape you feel like you're standing in it that is the difference I never believe that until I went to medium format and I know people will say that it doesn't make a difference, blah blah they are usually people that don't own a medium format camera. And like you have said it does have some logistical challenges. Sometimes it is expensive. It is heavy and the shallow depth to feel can present some problems to in certain situations but for me the positives of this system far out way the negatives I have the GFX 50 S Mark two and eventually I'll probably upgrade to the 100 ii .... And I absolutely love it. Interestingly I still have a crop sensor camera that I take with me and I take similar photos with that. Then I compare the two images and I'm a very good landscape photographer. I have to laugh as well. I have an XT5 and I do exactly the same when I need a longshot 300 or 400 mil. I have a lens that goes onto my XT5 and to be honest having a huge zoom on a GFX camera probably wouldn't work as well. There's reasons for that weight being one of them and the actual ability to hold the camera handheld would be very compromised. And just the cost of the lens would be ridiculous. The lens would be 10,000 bucks if it was a 400 mm lens. The dynamic range is ridiculous isn't it? You can just recover stuff it does make real world shooting easier and I found that as well especially in golden hour situations and you're facing the sun. It just makes it so much easier. I came from Nikon to Fuji, and I found them in your system to be relatively similar. Even the naming of certain things in the camera are similar. However, if you pick up a Sony or a canon, they are completely different terminology in the menus, and there's no way I could use those cameras, simply because of the terminology I'm now 50 and I don't want to learn a whole new system when I went to Fuji, I felt like it was almost a Nikon camera in terms of the menu system was very similar. Even the wrench icon is the same. The one thing that medium format also did for me and sorry for my long message. I did get excited by this video was and still is that medium format gets you to slow down. There is definitely more of a methodical process that you need to go through when you're shooting around depth of field where you focus and a few other things as well and just the GFX cameras themselves are not running gun style cameras so they do get you to slow down and I actually think that's a good thing. I'm very much a mindfulness space photographer and this camera just suits my mindful approach.
But what about the photograph as a whole? Is it a story, is it about something, or is it just a snapshot of a moment in time? The master's photographs stand the test of time because, even though they are comparatively "low-res", they compel on an emotional or intellectual level. Chasing MP is a fruitless quest...which isn't to say I'd reject more MP in the next iteration of my system 😄 but I'm pretty happy with what I have because the system as a whole really facilitates the kind of work I like to do. Which I think is the key takeaway of Mark's video.
@@whafrogchasing megapixels is a waste of time? Did you know that the first landscape photographers used cameras they needed a mule to pull up mountains and had huge negatives? We have it easy. It’s not about chasing megapixels anyways. It’s the larger sensor
Well most landscape photographers use wide angle lenses which pushes things back. What’s nice about medium format is the sensor is large so you’re not using a wide angle in a tiny “ full frame “ sensor. All that detail is in a larger area for it to breath
Couldn’t agree more on 4:3 aspect ratio for landscapes. I miss it from my time with MFT.
It's the best!!
Time well spent! Thanks for the great information and for sharing your medium format experience!
Thanks for checking out the video!
@@MarkDenneyPhotoMakes we want to get into medium format, not sure if that's a good thing 😅
I agree with everything said. I’ll just add to my X-T5 I bought an XF150-600. I'm happy!
Great video, Mark. It's wonderful to see a photographer passionate not just about his favorite camera but the whys behind the preference. While I'm in the full frame world at the moment, I could see myself gravitating toward medium format in the future for portraiture.
Thanks Craig!
Mark, I agree with your comment of how big a 300mm lens would have be on a medium format camera. I have a Pentax 300mm lens for my Pentax 6x7 medium format film camera and it is huge. If I had realized how large it would be I wouldn't have bought it.
Of all the photography that I have done over the years my absolute favorite was 645 medium format film. To me there is nothing that compares. I currently shoot mostly birds and wildlife these days with the Sony eco system. I often think back to those medium format film days and this video makes me wonder 🤔This could be a expensive journey 😁
Not sure if you’ve tried already, but a lot of full frame Nikkor and nicer Sigma (105 1.4 art for example) lenses can be adapted to the gfx with minimal/no vignettes, so that might scratch your itch for longer lenses that aren’t quite as massive.
Very down to earth and completely correct. Yes focus stacking is often required, but very simple to do. And yes the long lens will be an issue in perpetuity so to the physics of the system and work around are needed. As you do I use a Fuji apc and the 70-300 that is an excellent solution and allows to share batteries on several models now. I do wonder if Fuji (are you listening???) would not be able to come up with a 150-500 built with some of the tricks they used for the 35-70mm, which is a very small and lightweight lens but with mighty optical capabilities!!!
I used medium format for weddings in the 70's, as I was also doing motorsport I had 2 complete systems, 7 Medium format lenses as there were no zooms. Maximum focal length 300mm, only I couldn't use it for sport, too much film, no AF etc. It may be easier now with digital but you are still limited by lack of lenses, weight, and you can probably do exactly the same on full frame, especially stitching a panorama. You pays your money, you makes your choice.
The 4:3 aspect ratio is the FX 645 format captured by 645 full-frame film and digital cameras. The GFX is a 1.3 crop 645 format and records in the 4:3 aspect ratio. With that said, the Nikon Z7ii and Z9 can be shot in this format with slight MP cropping. I shot 645 and 67 medium-format film cameras for many years. I love the 4:3 aspect ratio. Today I shoot Nikon but I am also ready to jump to medium format for my professional work, but not dumping my trusty Nikon. Just trying to figure out if I am adding a 2nd Z9 to my kit first. Nice video.
I thought long and hard about moving to the medium format world, and to using this camera specifically. Eventually, I decided to go with the Sony A7RV. Price, size and weight of the overall kit, and the lense selection all put together...hard to beat. That said, the images that this camera(the GFX 100S) can produce are just unreal, even compared to the 61 sensor on the sony.
Bringing up aspect ratio I have grown to dislike the 2:3 aspect ratio of full frame. I enjoy 4x5 much better
Always enjoy your videos Mark. Very informative. I currently am using the Canon R6 m2. Like you said photography should be fun and to me, just being able to go out and capture part of nature is a good day!
I get a lot of use from my GF250, and sometimes add the 1.4x for greater reach. What I’m really looking forward to is the upcoming GF500
I shoot full frame and am considering medium format. Thanks for the great overview of MF -- very helpful info on dynamic range, depth of field, crop-ability. HOWEVER, for me image quality is most important, and I was disappointed that you skipped over that. I personally would crawl over broken glass to get notably better image quality. I would cheerfully use the least user-friendly, un-fun, clunky device imaginable, if it gave me image quality at a higher level. So the next time you get on the topic of medium format, please do feel free to waste our time with some detailed commentary on what is the difference between MF and full-frame in terms of image quality. You mention tonality -- what is that?? Any other points re image quality. I guarantee I will not be bored.
Thanks for the video Mark...All great information for those contemplating embracing the realm of Medium format...it's a huge investment and this will help with furthering the decision making process with a "hands on'" testimonial...I made the decision to go "All In" late last year and haven't regretted it...However, I do feel a little guilty when down loading the files and I can hear the anguishing and laborious moans of my iMac processing and crunching all that data!!!
what I miss here is any remark that a medium size system also costs a lot of more money while you have a very restricted number of lenses compared to a mainstream fullframe system (which is less than half of the price).
I picked up a 50r a few years back and built a landscape kit for cheaper than I did when I shot on Canon. Plus you can adapt pretty much any lens your heart desires ; )
About 7 years ago I bought an RZ67 pro ii, a 50, 65, 90, 110, 180 and 250mm lens, 4x120 film backs, and a prism finder all ex+or better for under $1200. And 160 rolls of film for under $200. I can hardly believe how much the price has gone up over that time. Still using and enjoying it when time permits even at my advanced age.
What’s your point. Everyone has a budget. Some willingly will spend tons on food , watches, cars and yes cameras akd lensss
I was considering the GFX 100SII in addition to my couple of Canon R5s I have been using a few years now. I don’t think i can justify the purchase though as medium format is for very specific uses, whereas full frame is much more versatile. I just would not use MF enough (as a full time professional photographer). The Fuji would be more of a camera for me than for work, but i don’t really do landscapes and although i have done portraits, not too often, at least not artistic ones.
As far as i understand, the depth of field argument for MF is a non starter as it is just about lens and aperture equivalents.
The two things that intrigue me about MF though are the detail and the dynamic range. A little less so the detail as my R5 already gives me 45MP and i am not sure how much i would see a difference for all that extra money. The dynamic range on the other hand though really does intrigue me and i would love to compare RAW files from each system. I have long felt frustrated by the limited dynamic range of FF.
Maybe i should rent one, but again, do i REALLY need it. Nice to window shop though 😊
Thank you for this refreshing video! Very inspiring, and obviously coming from the heart!
Thanks so much!
enjoyed this video. would like to see one about which focal lengths you find yourself using the most? (Unless you've already done one like that, in which case would like a link. thanks!
Medium format certainly produces some fantastic images but there are several major drawbacks for me. First is price. Medium format may be more affordable than ever but it's way out of my price range. Secondly, I do a lot of hiking with my gear and downsized because I got tired of carrying a brick around. Lastly, and this goes along with my second point, the size of even full frame was too big for my needs. I believe in a minimalist approach and so I have a Fuji X-T3, 16-80 zoom and the 70-300.
Gfx 50R owner and I'm happy with the gear
Just ordered my first Fujifilm camera (X-T5), I'm looking forward to using it. I plan to use it to complement my Pentax K-1mii.
I record all the videos on this channel with the XT-5 - it's incredible!
The lack of long telephoto lenses is certainly a concern. But considering the depth to which you can crop without losing great resolution, it would seem to at least somewhat negate the lack of lens options. Mark, do you find this to be the case?
Constrictive aspect ratio is SO TRUE about FF. I used M43 for over a year and went back to FF and hated how completely narrow it felt. It is very cinematic for video, but 4:3 is superior and much more natural for photography
I was thinking that mediumd format was more expensive than full frame. I mean this fuji costs like some flagship full frame cameras, and I can say also the same about the lenses costs. Incredible.
I shoot the Pentax 645z medium format camera and I have found it to be far superior to small format in most ways. My only complaint is the low number of images per second. But I'd say 95% of my paid work is now using the medium format solution.
Great photographer, great hair 👍🤗
Hahahah - thank ya!
I just sold my 100s and went for a nikon z8, hope I made the right decision as I loved the 100s but wanted a bit more versatile camera to do wildlife etc. I sure miss how easy the menu system etc was on the 100s!! The nikon z8 is more complicated for sure and takes more time getting used to.
Welcome to Nikon with the Z8 :)
I have the GFX 50SII and love it for all the reasons you mentioned. I have just three lenses, 20-35, 35-70 and the 100-200. I also have the Hasselblad 500 V Series camera and with an adapter I use my 250 and 350 Hasselblad lenses to get that additional reach when I think I will need that. I will say that unlike you I find the menu system very difficult to use and not intuitive at all
I‘m in APSC & Medium; 500mm GF should come this year
Frankly, when taking the „pro“ requirement put of the equation MFT will check most boxes perfectly and image quality is still more than good enough.
It's all a trade off.
Pretty much!
What are you guys all using L brakets for? Protection?
I enjoyed your take on the Fuji GFX 100s... thanks for a great video....
Thanks Dennis!
excellent video. Mark. In my photography journey I have owned a Pentax 6x7, a Mamiya RZ. I no longer have those cameras. I recently got a Pentax 645 film and I am loving it. I recently started shooting film again and the Pentax is a joy. And it's a very easy camera to use. In the 35mm world I prefer full frame sensors. I do have a Canon 7D for when I need a little more reach from my 70-200 lens.
Glad to hear you enjoyed it!
Interesting- the 4:3 aspect ratio is one of the top reasons I haven't considered a mf camera! Aside from preferring 2:3, my customers already have a hard enough time choosing the right print size. To give them yet another whole additional range of options...no way!
As someone who could never afford a digital medium format camera: I'm considering buying a vintage film MF camera.
Any thoughts on this?
Remember you can use a lot of full frame lenses on the GFX!
102 megapixels - is it a lot or a little? And is it worth paying extra for dynamic range? The answer is simple: HDR and a panoramic head, for example Nodal Ninja 6. Yes, you will have to spend more time shooting, but even with my 24-70mm lens I cannot process some photos in Photoshop and I can only reduce the resolution due to limitations Photoshop, but there are almost no restrictions on optics.
As an amateur/enthusiast photographer, spending the money for a GFX wouldn't make sense. Not that I wouldn't love to have one! I'd love a Porsche Carrera GT too, but that ain't happening any time soon either! LOL! I'm still shooting my X-T3 and just love it. It's a great hiking companion, but also does portraits, sports, street and everything in between more than good enough for me. The one thing I'd like to get for it is a long lens. I've been keeping an eye on used xf50-140 lenses, but they're still to expensive for me. I may have to think about another option like your 55-200. I was hoping to get that 50-140 because of the wider aperture for sports, but the f3.5 on the 55-200 might be ok. Question: In your opinion, how is the OIS on the 55-200? Thanks for the overview. Take care, have a great weekend!
I love canon ff mirrorless
Which memory cards do you use with the GFX?
Your wall clock needs a new battery. Lol
lol, you made us all go back and look
Hello, interesting video since in few days I am getting a new GFX camera. I do not plan to leave my Z8, since I like to shoot some wildlife and sometimes sports. My plan for the GFX is to use it mainly for landscape. The Z8 is good, but I miss a bit the dynamic range of the medium format. I checked some forums and UA-cam videos, as lenses I plan to purchase the GF 35-70 and the GF 23 (both used) for wide angle . You mentioned that the GFX system (unfortunately) up to now does not have a much choice for long zoom lenses (100-200, 250 and the coming 500). At this point do you advise me to wait to purchase the GF 100-200 and continue to use the Nikon Z8 + Z 100-400 when the subject is far or the GF 100-200 is still worth the initial investment?
Lovely
Interesting video Mark....a couple of things, I was in the Lake District in the UK last weekend and I met a guy using this system....he mentioned the depth of field can be a challenge, did you find this also ref the focal length matter....with the crop availability could you get a 400mm focal length by cropping on a 200mm lens 😊.
I currently use the Sony a7iv.
Why are there fewer extreme teles or fisheyes in MF? Perhaps because beyond the middle focal length and short tele portrait lengths, you're likely throwing sensor resolution away with the highest MP sensors
I'm not knocking medium format at all here, but I think for the majority of shooters, full frame 35mm is probably the happy middle ground... good dynamic range and image quality, and more importantly cost and size/weight concerns are less since FF lenses (and sometimes bodies) are smaller and lighter. For me, the biggest prohibiting factor for not moving to MF is cost, as I like to travel, and I'd rather spend money on travel and use my FF kit, than upgrade my camera to a MF system and have less money to spend on travel, or have to take time off from traveling to buy the gear, and many are probably in the same boat. I don't doubt that MF has its advantages but I think for most people, FF is probably "good enough" balance between affordability, portability and quality (image quality).
I don't think any camera makes anyone a better photographer, UNLESS their current camera / system is legitimately holding them back in some way, but for most people, that's not the reason they perhaps aren't getting better or progressing (if they're concerned about that). But at the same time, a different system/format/camera may be what gets you inspired to shoot more perhaps, and that's fine too. I mean I just bought Nikon's new Zf retro camera because I missed the Fuji XT cameras I had (I consolidated my DSLRs and Fuji system when the Nikon Z system was released to only having one single system and set of lenses with multiple bodies that could share the same set of lenses as that was cheaper in the long run). But while the Zf has taken some time to get used to (particularly the dial and button layout) it has been a bit of a change for the good as it reminds me of the days when I was shooting with my Fuji XT2 which I enjoyed, but again, wasn't really economically viable to support two systems in the long run) so the Zf is the next best thing and it's been enjoyable to be honest, as it's something different, and it's a bit different than shooting with your typical DSLR style camera, which I was starting to get a little bored with (wanted the dials and controls like a manual film camera). So I think new or different gear is fine if it inspires you, but you shouldn't go into it thinking that it will make you a better photographer necessarily. But if inspiration is what one needs to get out there and practice, then maybe we can say it's a contributing factor.
Well, since you can crap, oh, crop, its fine! :))) Nice video Mark! :)))
LOL!!!
The 3:2 vs 4:3 is funny.... I feel the same but opposite - The 3:2 to me has a breathing space that 4:3 does not. Maybe it's because I mostly shoot horizontal rather than vertical for whatever reason - and I'm not a landscape photg.
@ 2:48, what kind of tripod head is that? It looks outta this world! Does anyone know this tripod head's name?
once you go medium you can't go back to full frame... love my gfx100s beyond words. 2 yrs with it now...
I'll second that. Medium format is the way!
Great Video Mark. Agree with the aspect Ratio. I also love it. DO you also shoot 4:3 with the X-T5?
And yes Fujifilm are so fun to use :)
The XT4 doesn't have that option, only 3:2, 16:9, and 1:1. Not quite 4:5.
Being as perturbed as I was with fudging 'round with Crop Factors, and needing to shell out load of ¥€$ on nice shiny, and BRIGHT f2.8 Lenses on Canons cheap 1.6x Crop APS-C bodies. I decided I would get a 5D mk II instead, where a 50mm lens, is an actual 50mm Lens.*, but I digress!
Was there a time when People were getting off 120mm were drawing these identical arguments against 35mm? seems to me, that 120mm never quite entered the mainstream conscience the way 35mm had. The fact that these APS-C Bodies are deceptively (incorrectly, or not), being perceived as being equal to your daddies old AE1 hasn't helped much. Being a dinosaur myself, I grew up on 35mm and I can't bring myself to accept any less. And yet, the future in both Photography, and Videography seems to be the same Device I'm using to type this out on.
* Yes I know, despite the FOV Crop, that makes the Image 'look' like it might have been shot at 80mm. It's just a 1:1 crop of a 50mm on a full sensor. Then theres that other problem with blurry / creamy backgrounds. And, well EF-S Glas just doesn't seem to cut it. I'm sure APS-C has some advantages somewhere. I just haven't found / afforded to find it yet.
Short answer: No, they don't!
Long answer: No... Theyyyyyy don't!
Yes, absolutely, positively ... medium format cameras really DO make a difference, just like in the days of film photography.
The physics are a bit different, and not just the sizes of the format. As for technical quality, larger is always better.
And generally speaking, in order for the perfection to be more abundantly noticed a grand way, you must pay heed to the particulars. And yes - The LARGER the imaging sensor, the better. Except for the inconvenience of more bulky equipment.
But mirror-less cameras surely have a way of driving down the bulk.
Its a wonder how Ansel Adams ever took a decent photograph lugging around a 4x5 and 8x10 camera, film holders, a tripod and a limited lens inventory.
He had something we don't have today.
Time
@@fintonmainz7845 Last time I checked there were stll 24 hours in a day.....just saying. However I will admit Digital photograpy is convenient and a relative bargain.
Nice post mark. I can relate to all items you mentioned. I own a GFX 100s and an xt-5. And I am just a hobbyist photographer and I travel many places. My last travel was to shoot over 5000 pics in Vietnam last year in 3 weeks. I had same challenge for not having a 100-400mm lens. I fixed that by doing this.
I got a mint copy of canon 100-400mm usm L II lens and got the Fringer auto adapter for my GFX and xt5. I also got a second hand mint 1.4 vII tele converter for canon lens. I sold my gf 100-200 lens. This gave me all the flexibility for long lens now. Yes I fix vignettes over 150mm on GFX for that lens but I have learnt to compose better and I crop out edges easily if really required. And this lens is no slouch. The quality is better than Fuji gf100-200 lense esp the way it renders the image/colours. I am loving the output from this lens on gfx100s and xt5.
I carry gf20-35, gf 45-100 and canon 100-400mm. That’s all I need.
Very informative video. I love what the MF image offers but with the following 3 concerns:
1. The 4:3 ratio, this is not " issue" but personal thing, totally opposite as you, I am not a huge fan of this aspect ratio, I almost want to say I hate that, it's just not how I see the world, LOL, definitely not how I view that on my computer screen, I am more of a wide aspect ratio guy so if I shoot GFX100S, I will practically throw away more than 1/4 to even 1/3 of the pixels on every single picture, that's what I found from my previous experience shooting MFT system so i will be really careful to get into another system with such aspect ratio, it works great for portrait though.
2. lack of the F1.4/F1.8 super wide lens for wide field astro/milky way. Currently the Sigma 14 F1.4 and Sony 14 GM and Sigma 20 F1.4 DG DN and Sony 20 1.8G are my main wide field Astro lens on FF, there is no such equivalence on MF yet, so I am patiently waiting such lens show up in this system.
3. The telephoto, you already mentioned that, I also shoot with super telephoto quite a bit, have a few 400, 500 and 600 prime on my FF and APS-C bodies, those would be impossible to get a replacement in MF, of course IC an crop the image due to the high pixel count, but it's kind of counter productive and still can't get a decent 800mm equivalent moon pic with any Fuji lens with cropping, and I don't think this will be resolved any time soon, even they make a 600 F4 MF lens I won't be able to afford it anyway.
With that being said, I think I will still give the Fuji MF system a try for general landscape and portrait, just one camera body with a few primes will be a good starting point.
You can adapt those lenses.
@@hautehussey only some of the EF and F mount but not those E mount, which is all the fast super wide is.
@@dannyli9424 I’m talking about the long telephotos.
Sorry to bother...What's the ball head at 2:45?
This has nothing to do with this video but I was rewatching one of yours from a couple years ago. Just had a question about black and white. Is there an advantage to or quality difference to shoot in black and white as opposed to just changing to black and white in Lightroom?
Only if you’re using a camera that is actually b&w (no bayer color filters, etc..)
2:47 There is a reasonable, real world argument for why very long focal lengths do not make that much sense on medium format - besides the weight, size and cost. Here's why: at very long focal lengths in many real world situations the optical resolution that will reach the sensor won't even come close the detail the medium format sensor would be able to resolve - not because the lens is bad, but for factors like atmosphere and weather acting on the light path in between the very long distance in between the subject and the lens. It doesn't make sense to put a 100MP sensor behind the equivalent of a 100-400mm lens for many landscape scenes, a lower resolution 35mm format sensor will capture the same amount of detail.
I disagree. A nice 200 or 400 is very high resolution. Atmosphere could come into play, but not necessarily.
And a lot of the lenses in that range will adapt to the Fuji size of “medium format.”
What tripod are you running mate?
You say that because of the sensor size it means that the lens has to be big, it does but for some reason they are ridiculously big. Just think a Pentax 6x7 medium format film camera has a far bigger area to cover than that digital format sensor, yet Pentax produce a reasonable sized 300mm F4!. Why are ALL thses digaital camera lenses so bloody big,even FF and crop sensor have bigger lenses than film cameras used to have AND they are slower in many cases.
What are your thoughts about medium format vs full frame using pixel shift?
Pixel shift can’t really be used well outdoors, or where the subject moves at all.
@@hautehussey landscape images with no moving parts?
@@irutgers any landscape with leaves or vegetation at all will have movement, most of the time.
@@hautehussey thanks 😊
I use FF but if i need MF then i stich 3 photos of static objets and get the MF look.
I am almost at point to make my camera purchase Nikon Z8 or Fuji GFX 100S and trending towards the GFX 100S, Do I waits a bit longer and got for the GFX 100S II?
I feel so much room to breathe within 3:2 after getting used to it, no longer that claustrophobic feel of 4:3. Not to talk the crop possibilities of a FF camera and the wonderful screens & possibilities on e.g. Nikon & Canon cameras on top of the great menu’s. And then not to forget the joy it brings to shoot e.g. with a Z8 or Z9. The possibilities with all the different lens options and even have the background in focus doing landscape photography. And I would for sure do it again after 3 years as FF systems are so affordable in the meantime…
My main reason for not getting a medium format is I can't afford it. 😅
Not if you use dxo pure raw 😅
Mark, there's one thing you didn't take into account in this video. You're sitting in black clothes and showing us a black camera and lenses. And at the same time, you suggest that we see the difference in size between glasses for cameras with a crop sensor and glasses for medium format. It smacks of mockery.))). Black on black, which is also not highlighted in any way. You get very good landscapes, but you didn't take into account such a "trifle".
Medium format is not the best system for long telephoto shooters! For most purposes full frame is the better solution, or even APS-C. The only real advantage I see is the crop opportunities it provides. But good photographers don't need to crop often and a lot, do they?
Medium format is mostly for people with no skills who think they can outlay a massive amount of cash on medium format and that will automatically make their photos better. Even my dentist has medium format and his photos are garbage but he thinks they are art as they were taken on medium format. They are on the wall and are ghastly but thankfully when I’m in the dentist chair I’m looking at the ceiling and he is yet to put them there.
Cry forever bro 😝😝😝
Mark, agree with you completely - I switch from a Sony A7RV to the Fuji GFX 100 ii last November and it took a while but I don't see myself going back to full frame any time soon - I overcame the lens reach by using their extender ad to be honest have not seen any degredation in the photo quality on the 100-200 GF kens - very happy with my choice, thanks for your video's they have been a great help in stretching my imagination.
Amateurs 🤍 Cameras
Pros 🤍 Lenses
Artists 🤍 the light
💯
I like the tripod. Which one is that..
Thanks Mark - with the file size of images, and the amount of images you can store to an external drive being less compared to a full frame or APS-C camera, would you say that you are making less, more or the same amount of images than you were 3 years ago?
This video ended well huh 🤔
At the beginning of the digital age, I patently waited for Nikon and Leica to produce a full-frame digital camera that accepted my inventory of Nikkor and Leitz lenses. However, when I could wait no longer, I bought Fuji APS-C cameras with 7 lenses.
In this digital age, I am still waiting for someone to produce a 6x7cm medium format digital camera that accepts my inventory of Mamiya RB67 lenses.